
^F^ 




SPEECH 

OF 

Hon. J. B. Foraker 

BEFORE 

The Clearing House Association 

OF 

HAMILTON, OHIO 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1913 

(As reported in the Cincinnati Commercial Trity>ine) 

After being introduced by Judge Clarence Murphy, Sen- 
ator Foraker commenced his remarks by referring to the 
disastrous effects upon the Miami Valley of the recent floods 
and drifted into a discussion of the power of the general 
Government to improve the Great Miami River in such a 
way as to prevent such floods for the future, and then took 
up the subject of 

Currency Legislation^ 
and said: 

This being a bankers' occasion it may be expected that 
I shall say something about the currency legislation now 
pending in Congress. 

When I accepted the invitation that brought me here T 
supposed I would say something on that subject. At that 
time a currency bill had just been passed by the House of 
Representatives. It was then under consideration in the 
Finance Committee of the Senate. 



The question was, broadly stated, whether that particular 
bill should be passed. It presented some distinct and very 
important and interesting questions for discussion, but since 
then the situation has changed. Instead of the House cur- 
rency bill pending in the Senate there are now three currency 
bills pending in the Senate, together with more than 200 
amendments that have been introduced. All these various 
and in many respects conflicting propositions are at this time 
being debated. 

It would require hours to intelligently state the many 
points of difference and indicate their respective points of 
advantage and disadvantage. 

In view of this situation it is impossible to intelligently 
take up such a subject on such an occasion as this, and for 
that reason I shall content myself with only some general 
comments. 

When the House bill and two other bills, known as the 
Owen bill and the Hitchcock bill, were reported out of the 
Senate Finance Committee a few days ago, with two or three 
different formal reports accompanying them, it was stated 
by Senators O'Gorman of New York, Reed of Missouri and 
Hitchcock of Nebraska, all Democratic Senators, and perhaps 
by others, that while the committee, or even a majority of 
the committee, were unable to agree upon any bill, they were 
at least agreed that there were so many defects in the House 
bill that it would have been a calamity to the country if 
it had become a law in the form in which it came to the 
Senate. 

There appeared to be general acquiescence in the opinion 
so expressed on the part of a majority, at least, of both 
Democratic and Republican Senators. 

At any rate, while there has been no agreement upon 
a bill, there has been an agreement on so many amendments 
of the House bill, that are in the nature of an improvement, 
that it is now generally believed that a bill will be passed at 
an early date, probably before the holidays, that will be a 
fairly satisfactory measure. 



Author 



Upon this fact we may congratulate ourselves, for no 
legislation so directly and universally affects for good or evil 
all classes of people as legislation affecting our financial 
system. 

We may thus congratulate ourselves notwithstanding the 
fact that in all probability many will suffer from disappoint- 
ment, as I shall, who are of the opinion that the best way 
to make our bank reserves mobile and our currency flexible 
is by means of one central bank, with such branch banks 
as may be found necessary, and who are also of the o|jinion 
that our circulating notes should be issued by the banks and 
that the banks should be primarily responsible for their re- 
demption. In other words, that they should not be issued 
by the government, thus adding to the primary obligations of 
the government perhaps a thousand millions of dollars. 

But while there will be much disappointment to some and 
disappointments in other respects, yet the result from recent 
indications promises to be so much better than was expected 
when the House bill was passed, that all should welcome 
the end of the struggle, which seems fast aproaching, and 
be only too glad to give the new law a full and fair trial, 
with the hope and belief that it will prove at least a long step 
in the right direction. 

The Senate. 

I can not quit this topic without calling attention to the 
fact that what the Senate has done with respect to this leg- 
islation is a vindication, added to innumerable similar, vindi- 
cations, of the wisdom of our founders in providing in their 
scheme of government two houses of Congress instead of only 
one, as it is now frequently said they should have done. 

When you hear men finding fault with the vital features 
of our institutions and with the fathers of our government, 
you may well scrutinize carefully the criticisms they make. 

The Declaration of Independence, the Ordinance of 1787, 
and the constitution of the United States are three of the 
greatest political instruments to be found in all our govern- 

3 



mental history. They at least are immortal, whether our gov- 
ernment endures or fails. 

They were made by men of the same class, the same civili- 
zation, the same general affiliations and the same experiences. 
They were all patriotic men; they were all self-sacrificing 
men; most of them were scholarly men; most of them were 
students of history, and most of them were statesmen of a 
high order. They had a just appreciation of the dignified 
and far-reaching character of the work in which they were 
engaged ; they built wisely, even more wisely than they knew. 

The experience of more than a hundred years vindicates 
both their statesmanship and their patriotism. 

We may find occasion now and then, as new cot'ditions 
arise, as we have done in the past, to change some minor pro- 
vision of our organic law ; but when it comes to a proposition 
to change anything of vital character we should hesitate long, 
and carefully study and consider and weigh all the arguments 
for and against, before we lay violent hands upon what our 
fathers gave us. 

The Tariff. 

Recurring to the currency bill, if we get a measure that 
is fairly satisfactory we may congratulate ourselves, because 
it will do much to mitigate the injurious effects that, I fear, 
will be caused upon the business of the country by the low 
tariff law that has been enacted. 

I hope I may be allowed to say, without appearing to in- 
troduce politics on a nonpartisan occasion, that I have always 
so firmly believed, and do still so firmly believe in the policy 
of protection that I can not witness any important departure 
therefrom without apprehension that our prosperity will be 
seriously affected and that we will suffer a corresponding de- 
gree of business depression. 

I am simple minded enough to believe that if the manu- 
facturers of America have to pay twice as much for their 
labor and other expenses of operation, as is paid by their 
foreign competitors, they will have to do one or the other 

4 



of four things; quit, reduce wages, secure protection, or go 
into bankruptcy. 

They do not want to reduce wages. No patriotic Amer- 
ican does. On the contrary the American standard of wages 
is, as it should be, the pride of every true American citizen. 

Neither do they want to shut down; and, surely, they do 
not want to break up. The only alternative is to secure 
protection. 

Not high protection, nor low protection, nor moderate 
protection, but enough protection to protect; enough protec- 
tion to equalize the disadvantages to which we are subjected 
in competition with the manufacturers of the rest of the world. 

With that much protection we can safely invest our capi- 
tal, employ our labor, develop our resources, multiply our in- 
dustries and make ourselves fairly independent of all the other 
nations of the earth, as to at least all the things we can 
naturally produce. 

Such, at least, has been our experience in the past, and I 
know of no change of conditions that will justify the opinion 
that it will not be our experience in the future. 

The new tariff law is hardly yet in operation, but already, 
either on that account or some other, there is a slowing down 
of business. A bad currency bill would be ruinous. A good 
currency bill will be a great help. 

Give Business a Chance. 

If we could get it^ and our distinguished President would 
then allow the Congress to adjourn and go home, and give 
business a chance, we might have a fair degree of prosperity, 
notwithstanding the tariff. But if the Congress is to continue 
in session indefinitely, devoting the next three, or four, or 
five, or six months to legislating about business, for its further 
regulation, making more commissions to supervise our afifairs, 
fix prices at which commodities may be sold in private busi- 
ness and to regulate all kinds of business transactions, as 
Washington dispatches indicate it may do, it is impossible 
to foretell what the outcome will be. 

5 



If, on the other hand, we can prevail on our Represent- 
atives in Congress to be conservative and legislate with a 
view to helping business and business men, instead of re- 
stricting and restraining and entangling, we will be able to 
go forward to greater success than any heretofore achieved. 

The time has come to help business, instead of further 
attacking it. For the last ten years business, especially big 
business, has been harried and annoyed and be-deviled until 
patience is well nigh exhausted. If we were not growing 
and developing, and compelled to do business in spite of all 
these harassments, business would be well nigh destroyed. 

The railroads, stripped of the control of their revenues, 
have been stripped of their credit, and all railroad building 
has practically stopped. We are all learning that war upon 
them is war at the same time upon practically all other 
kinds of business. We are all interested in the restoration 
of their prosperity, and, therefore, in a policy that will give 
them a chance to meet the proper demands of maintenance, 
equipment and general improvement. 

There was a time when it was thought to be to a man's 
credit for him to invest capital and employ labor and be suc- 
cessful in the manufacture of some useful product. All re- 
joiced when he enlarged his plant and lengthened his pay- 
roll, and gave other evidences of prosperity, but we have 
come to the time when such a man rarely gets credit, unless 
he is unsuccessful. 

There was a time when Legislators and Congressmen 
thought it their duty to lighten the burdens of taxation and 
enact laws for the protection and encouragement of all kinds 
of business, but now it seems as though almost ever)' man 
who gets into the Legislature or into Congress, or any other 
office of prominence, thinks it his duty to spend his time tax- 
ing his ingenuity to conjure up new burdens of taxation and 
new forms and methods for enforcing them, and in making 
laws for the regulation of business that are intended to restrict 
and even to entrap and ensnare the average business man and, 
so to speak, hamstring all freedom of effort of even the most 
legitimate character. , 



Such legislation apparently proceeds upon the theory that 
the successful business men of the country are a lot 
of business crooks, who must be subjected to a gen- 
eral supervision and all kinds of restrictions, inspections and 
regulations as to how they shall keep their books of account, 
and make reports to somebody of at least the results of all 
their transactions. 

These ideas have prevailed to such an extent that it has 
been well said that it now requires almost as much industry 
on the part of the average business man to keep out of the 
penitentiary as it does to conduct his business. 

The Income Tax. 

The income tax is a fair example of such legislation. The 
Congress should have power to impose such a tax, but that 
power should be exercised only in time of war, or other 
emergency. The American people are patriotic enough to 
submit to any kind of supervision, or any kind of espionage, 
or any kind of restraint, or any sort of requirement as to 
repyorts with respect to their business that may be thought 
necessary, when there is an enemy knocking at the door; but 
nobody wants to be annoyed and vexed and harassed with 
such requirements in times of peace; especially not when the 
real purpose is not so much to raise revenue as to pry into 
private affairs, and, when such a form of taxation is justified 
only as a substitute for an income derived from tariff duties 
that have been dispensed with to the great satisfaction of 
the people of other countries, and the great dissatisfaction of, 
at least, a large portion of the people of this country. 

However annoying, and however much of an interference 
with business all such legislation may be, we must patiently 
submit to it, and faithfully comply with it until we have an 
opportunity to repeal it. If it should be necessary to make 
some radical changes in the political control of the legislative 
departments of the State and the nation to accomplish such 
repeal and to stop assaults generally upon the business of the 
country such changes will surely be made. 

7 



The business men of this country were never less in need 
of leading strings than they are to-day ; they were never more 
honorable or upright in all their business transactions, and this 
is true not only of ordinary business, but of so-called big busi- 
ness as well. In every other country except this big business 
is encouraged. This is particularly true of Germany. It 
should be encouraged here, for it is largely through the agen- 
cy of business of that character that we have been enabled 
to invade foreign markets, selling abroad as we did last 
year almost a billion and a half of manufactured products of 
which at least 70 per cent, was American labor. I hope and 
believe the pendulum of public sentiment is likely to swing 
soon, if it is not already doing so, in the opposite direction 
from that in which it has been swinging. I believe there is a 
growing recognition of the fact that war on business is war 
on ourselves, and that if we would have that universal pros- 
perity to which we are justly entitled, all business should have 
a fair chance, and that in this behalf all demagogues should 
be relegated to the rear and a sound, safe and helpful order 
of things should be once more inaugurated. 

Socialism. 

In determining what should be done with respect to these 
attacks on business, it is our duty to look beyond that which 
appears on the surface, to the cause behind them, and when 
we do so we discover that they are in part the legitimate 
offspring of Socialism. This movement, starting in Ger- 
many, so far as its modern development is concerned, and, 
spreading all over the world, has for its avowed purpose the 
overthrow and destruction of what it terms capitalism. 

There have been some modifications of the Marxian doc- 
trines of Socialism, particularly here in America; but in the 
United States, as everywhere else, it is the avowed purpose 
of this political party, for such it has come to be, to substi- 
tute common or public ownership for private ownership, not 
only of all public utilities, but also of all property employed 
in the production and distribution for consumption of all 
products and goods and supplies. 

8 



Generally, when men speak of Socialism, they think only 
of this idea and purpose and take no thought, because they 
have no knowledge of the other qualities and purposes of 
Socialism as understood in Europe and as advocated and de- 
fined by the leaders of Socialism in this country. 

Considering only the attitude of Socialism with respect 
to the ownership of such property, about which position, as I 
have stated it, there is no controversy, there are many who see 
in it some humanitarian features that are attractiv'e. 

On that account thousands have voted that ticket at recent 
elections who never stopped to study and never had any con- 
ception of other doctrines that belong under the general classi- 
fication of Socialism. 

Socialism has appeared to grow on another account. 

There has been of late much dissatisfaction at times, on 
one account and another, on the part of both Republicans and 
Democrats, with their respective parties. 

Thousands and even tens of thousands of Democrats and 
Republicans, dissatisfied with their respective parties, have, 
on that account, voted the Socialist ticket, without stopping 
to think of the significance of Socialism, merely as a sort of 
protest against the action of their own parties in the respects 
as to which they were dissatisfied. 

The time has come, however, when Socialism has grown 
to such proportions that it is the duty of every American 
citizen, interested in the preservation of his country and the 
prosperity of his people, to study and learn and know what 
Socialism really means. 

If it meant nothing more than the common or public 
ownership of public utilities and the means of production and 
distribution, to which, by many, the meaning of Socialism is 
restricted, it would be enough to condemn it ; for even in this 
restricted sense Socialism would, in large part, destroy in- 
dividual initiative and individual enterprise and interfere with 
and greatly retard, if not stop altogether for a time at least, 
the development of our industries and the business capacities 
of our people. 



But Socialism means vastly more and vastly worse than 
this common ownership of property. It is not only the 
avowed enemy of capitalism, seeking to destroy the relations 
of employer and employee, to abolish entirely the wage system 
and substitute co-operation therefor, but it is also the open 
and avowed enemy of the State, the church, the family and 
the basic principles and institutions of modern civilization. 

The success of Socialism would be, in the language of 
Lord Roseberry, "The end of all — empire, religion, faith, free- 
dom, people; Socialism is the death blow to all." 

These words are none too strong to fittingly describe what 
the triumph of Socialism would mean. 

In support of the truth of this statement let me quote the 
definitions and purposes of Socialism as given by some of 
its most distinguished leaders. 

Two or three months ago the newspapers announced the 
death of Ferd August Bebel, one of the leaders of Socialism 
in Germany and a member of the Reichstag, and the leader 
of his party in that body. He was during all the latter years 
of his life an acknowledged authority on everything pertaining 
to Socialism. One of his definitions of Socialism was, quoting 
his exact language: 

"We aim in the domain of politics at Republican- 
ism; in the domain of economics at Socialism; in the 
domain of what is to-day called religion at Atheism.'' 

Franklin H. Wentworth, a leading Socialist of Massach- 
usetts, says : 

"All social laws are but the reflex and consequence 
of economic conditions. The present form of mar- 
riage can not escape this classification. Woman has 
been private property and the laws which bulwark con- 
ventional marriage bear ample testimony to prove this 
immoral fact." 

Engel, a celebrated Socialist author, says, in a work called 
"The Origin of the Family :" 

10 



"With the transformation of the means of produc- 
tion into collective property, the monogamous family 
ceases to be the economic unit of society; the private 
household changes to a social industry; the care and 
education of children becomes a public matter; society 
cares equally for all children, legal and illegal." 

Mr. H. G. Wells, a Socialist authority, in a speech pub- 
lished in The New York Independent of November 6, 1906, 
said : 

"Socialism involves the responsible citizenship of 
w^omen, their independence of men, and all the per- 
sonal freedom that follows ; it intervenes between the 
children and the parents, claiming to support them, 
protect them and educate them for its ampler purpose. 
Socialism, in fact, is the state family. The old family 
of the private individual must vanish before it, just 
as the old water works of private entertprise and the 
old gas company. They are incompatible with it. 
Socialism assails the triumphant system of the family 
to-day, just as Christianity did in its earlier and more 
vital centuries. So far as English Socialism is con- 
cerned, and the thing is still more the case in America, 
I must confess that the assault has displayed quite an 
extraordinary instinct for taking cover, but it is a 
question of tactics, rather than of essential antagon- 
ism." 

Among the writings of Bebel, the German Socialist, was a 
work entitled "Woman and Socialism." This book was in 
dorsed by the National Executive Committee of the Socialist 
party of the United States as a standard work on Socialism. 
In it he deals with the question of sex relationship as follows : 

"Under the proviso that he inflict injury upon 
none, the individual shall himself oversee the satis- 
faction of his own instincts. The satisfaction of the 
sexual instinct is as much a private concern as the 
satisfaction of any other natural instinct. None is, 
therefore, accountable to others, and no unsolicited 
judge may interfere. How I shall eat, how I shall 

11 



drink, how I shall sleep, how I shall clothe myself, 
is my private affair — exactly so my intercourse with 
a person of the opposite sex." 

Another standard authority on Socialism; in fact it has 
been termed the Bible of Socialism, is known as the "Com- 
munist Manifesto." In it occurs the following: 

"On what foundation is the present family based? 
On capital ; on private gain. In its completely devel- 
oped form the family exists only among the bour- 
geois. This family will vanish as a matter of course, 
when its complement vanishes and both will vanish 
with the vanishing of capital." 

Ex-President Roosevelt declared that William D. Hay- 
wood was "an undesirable citizen." Mr. Haywood is an ac- 
knowledged leader of the Socialist party of the United States. 
He recently said in a public speech, as quoted in the news- 
papers, that there need not be any controversy over the propo- 
sition, "That Socialism is a peril to the church and the State." 

He further said that 

"Real Socialists will not attempt to deny that it is. 
We are opposed to the State and we certainly are 
opposed to what we have heard of the church and what 
we know of it. We are told that up in Lawrence, 
Mass., we mardhed under the banner that said 'No 
God and No Master.' It is true there was such a 
banner in the parade at Lawrence. I hope the time will 
come some day when every man of the working 
class will march under the banner that says 'No God 
and No Master.' " 

A leading and recognized organ of the Socialist party is 
The Call, a newspaper published in New York City. In its 
issue of February 10, 1912, it said in an article published in 
its columns giving an account of a refusal of the Socialists of 
the State of Washington to allow the Stars and Stripes to 
float by the side of the red flag over a hall in which they were 
holding a Socialist convention : 

12 



"To Hell with your flag! . . . When the red flag 
flies above our homes and our nation we shall honor 
it and love it, but until it does we refuse to recognize 
or respect any flag which is merely the symbol of and 
protects some national section of international capital- 
ism. Down with the Stars and Stripes! Up with the 
red flag of humanity !" 

In an article published in The Call June 11, 1912, the 
writer says : 

"Let us acknowledge the truth frankly, and say 
that we care not a peanut for the ethical aspects of 
the question; let us admit that our sole concern is the 
acquisition of political power in order to enable our- 
selves to win full economic power. Let us admit if 
crime (as defined by capitalist law) and violence are 
calculated to further the movement, we are prepared 
and willing to use them. . . . Let us be honest." 

"The Appeal to Reason," the official organ of Mr. Eugene 
Debs, two or three times candidate for the Presidency of 
the Socialist party, in an issue printed just before the trial of 
the McNamara brothers in an article discussing the approach- 
ing election, said : 

"The fight at the polls this fall will center around 
the adoption of the initiative, referendum and recall 
amendments to the constitution. Under the provisions 
of the recall amendment the Judges of the Supreme 
Court of California can be retired. These are men 
who will decide the fate of the kidnapped workers. 
Don't you see what it means, comrades, to have in 
the hands of an intelligent, militant working class the 
power to recall the present capitalist Judges and put 
on the bench our own men? Was there ever su'^h an 
opportunity for effective work? No, not since Social- 
ism first raised its crmson banner on the shores of 
Morgan's country. The election for Governor aiid 
State officers of California does not occur until 1914, 
but with the recall at our command we can put otir 
men in ofiice without waiting for a regular election." 

13 



The Fifth Congressionar District of the State of Wiscon- 
sin, a part of Milwaukee, had the distinction, the first of its 
kind, of being represented in the last Congress by Victor L. 
Berger, a Socialist. He is quoted as saying, in the Socialist 
National Convention in 1908 : 

"I do not know how this question (of Socialism) 

is going to be solved. I have no doubt that in the 

last analysis we must shoot, and when it comes to 

shooting, Wisconsin will be there. We always make 

good." 

Later, in The Social-Democratic Herald of July 21, 1912, 
he said: 

"Therefore, I say, that each of the 500,000 Social- 
ists and of the 2,000,000 working men who instinctive- 
ly incline our way, should, besides doing much reading 
and still more thinking, also have a good rifle and the 
necessary rounds of ammunition in his home, and be 
prepared to back up his ballot with his bullet, if neces- 
sary." 

Thousands of quotations of similar character might be 
made from leading Socialists and standard works on Socialism, 
but listen to only one other. The City Mission Monthly, the 
official organ of the New York City Mission and Tract So- 
ciety, published in its issue for June, 1909, the following 
catechism, which it states was then being largely circulated by 
Socialists among the children of foreigners in that city : 

"Q. What is God? A. God is a word used to 
designate an imaginary being which people of them- 
selves have devised, 

"Q. Is it true that God has ever been revealed? 
A. As there is no God, he could not reveal himself. 

"Q. Has man an immortal soul, as Christians 
teach? A. A man has no soul, it is only an im- 
agination. 

"Q. Did Christ rise from the dead, as Christians 
teach? A. The report about Christ rising from the 
dead is a fable. 

14 



"Q. Is Christianity desirable? A. Christianty 
is not advantageous to us but is harmful, because it 
makes us spiritual cripples. ... All churches are im- 
pudent humbugs. 

"Q. Should we pray? A. We should not. By 
prayer we only waste time, as there is no God. If 
we are given to prayer, we gradually become imbe- 
ciles." 

Although its no wonder that it should do so, yet it should 
be cause of congratulation with all loyal and patriotic Amer- 
icans that the Roman Catholic Church, recognizing the dis- 
loyalty to both church and State and the exceeding wickedness 
of a movement that would overthrow and destroy civilization 
itself, should have solidly arrayed itself against it ; it is, how- 
ever, matter of wonderment that every other church of every 
denomination has not done the same. It can not be possible 
that the disloyal, unpatriotic, un-American purposes of this 
new political movement can be understood. 

My purpose in calling attention to it is to give warning 
of its character and to appeal to all Americans who have at 
heart the good of their country to quit sidetracking their con- 
sciences by voting the Socialist ticket when not pleased with 
something that has happened or has been done by their own 

parties. 

Party Emblems, Etc. 

In view of the immoral and political character and pur- 
poses of Socialism, as set forth in the quotations made, there 
is a particular reason why party names and party emblems 
should not be forbidden on tickets to be voted at our elections. 

In the presence of such a menace every man should be 
required to fly his colors. 

When one goes to the polls to vote he should know not 
only the name of the candidate for whom he votes, but his po- 
litical affiliations and his political beliefs in so far as those 
affiliations may disclose them. 

He should know, in short, whether a candidate named on 
the ballot is a Democrat or a Republican or a Socialist, and 
he must have this knowledge before he can vote intelligently. 

15 



It is not one voter in a thousand who could tell, without 
the aid of party names and emblems on the ticket, what is 
represented by each and every man on the ticket. 

Voting should not only be free, in every sense of the word, 
so that every man who votes shall vote as he may prefer to 
vote ; but it should be intelligent, so that every man may know 
for whom he is voting and for what he is voting. 

I have always found my ticket under the eagle and the 
name Republican. I would be willing to run the risk, if there 
were any necessary for it, or sense in it, of voting the Demo- 
cratic ticket as a result of not having the eagle or the name 
of my party printed on the ballot, but I would regret it ex- 
ceedingly if there could be any danger arising from the omis- 
sion of names and emblems of my voting a Socialist ticket. 

Every other man who is a true and loyal law-abiding, pa- 
triotic American must, if he knows what Socialism means, feel 
the same way. 

I hope therefore, all laws that stand in the way of giving 
the fullest information to the voter on the ballot that is fur- 
nished him may be repealed to the end that in the exercise of 
his right of suffrage he may, at least, act intelligently, and not 
through ignorance of their affilations and purposes cast his 
vote for candidates whom he would no more support, if fully 
informed, than he would invite the plague or the disasters of 
flood or famine. 

I have already said that the men who framed our institu- 
tions were wise and far-seeing statesmen; they gave us a 
representative government because no other seemed in the 
light of experience and reason to be suitable for a people of 
such great population and vast expanse of territory as we 
have in the United States. 

What they provided in this respect as to the governments 
of the nation and the State we early adopted as to party organ- 
ization and action. 

To prohibit by law the nomination of candidates for office 
by a delegate convention is, in my judgment and according 
to my experience, a grave mistake. 

16 



It has become so fashionable to attack and tear down and 
destroy whatever is or has been that the mere suggestion, if 
it come in the name of reform, or some radical change with 
respect to government, or with respect to political organiza- 
tions, is at once accepted as a new revelation of something 
better than what our fathers established. 

Every man who has any experience in such matters knows 
that in a free popular government it is true, as all recognized 
publicists of authority have said, that political parties are 
essential to the development and the discussion of new ques- 
tions that may arise. 

And every such person knows that it is the history of 
political parties in this country that they uniformly strive to 
formulate a declaration of principles which they can success- 
fully present to the people as better calculated than the prin- 
ciples of their opponents to promote the public welfare; and 
that they strive industriously, sincerely, faithfully to nominate 
as their candidates to represent those principles the best men 
their party affords. 

Now and then an unfortunate platform may be put forth, 
and an unfortunate nomination may be made, but always such 
mistakes are at the cost of the party responsible, and none 
of them ever would be made if the mistake involved could be 
foreseen. 

In other words, under the delegate convention system the 
people are all represented just as they are in the Legislature 
and in Congress, and those Representatives responsible to 
their constituencies for what they do have every incentive to 
serve their party faithfully, to the end that they may have 
opportunity to successfully and faithfully serve their country. 

Under this system political platforms have always repre- 
sented the political sentiments of those who framed them, and, 
with few exceptions, the candidates of all parties nominated 
to stand on those platforms have creditably represented the 
people behind them, and when elected to office have faithfully 
and creditably served the country and all the people who had 
any responsibility in giving them place and power. 

17 



It is not possible that under the primary system of making 
nominations first and then holding conventions afterward to 
frame a declaration of principles better results can be achieved 
than have been wrought in the years of the past. 

This is especially true of Ohio. From the beginning of 
our history as a State our public affairs have been ably admin- 
istered, and the representation of our Commonwealth has been 
of the most acceptable character. And what is true of Ohio 
is true also as to platforms and nominations by national 
parties. 

First, in order, should come a convention composed of 
delegates elected by the people, where platform declarations 
can be thoroughly considered and debated, and then carefully 
framed, so as to express party faith, party principles and party 
purposes, and then, after such a platfrom has been adopted, 
the candidates should be selected to represent and carry out 
the principles and pledges so promulgated. 

Nation-wide Primaries. 

This is particularly true as to the nomination of candidates 
for the Presidency and Vice Presidency. 

President Wilson in his recent message to the Congress 
recommended that conventions be prohibited and that all nom- 
inations be made at nation-wide primaries. On this recom- 
mendation I desire to make some observations. 

Our union is a union of separate States, each one a sover- 
eign except as to the powers by our constitution delegated to 
the Federal Government. 

Among the rights reserved by that instrument to the 
States and the people is the right carefully reserved for the 
purpose of protecting the equality that it was necessary to 
assure of Small States with large States in the matter of gov- 
ernment as a condition precedent to the formation of our 
Union, for States to act as such in some matters. 

It was accordingly carefully provided in the constitution 
of the United States that there should be forever equality of 
representation in the Senate, and that forever, in the election 

18 



of Presidents and Vice Presidents, the people should act by 
States, each having its own Electoral College, appointed or 
chosen in such way as the State, not the nation, may prescribe, 
and that if the Electoral College should fail to elect and the 
election should be thrown into the House, that there the vote 
shall be taken by States, each State having one vote, the 
smallest as well as the largest. 

Unless, therefore, we radically change our organic law 
so as to make the election of President and Vice President a 
national instead of a State matter, it is at least contrary to 
the spirit of the constitution, that a nation-wide vote should 
determine who shall be made candidates, as it is in conflict 
with the letter of the constitution to determine by a nation- 
wide vote who shall be elected. 

My remarks are already too extended for the occasion. 
If they were not I should gladly make some comments on 
some other matters; some of which have been brought for- 
ward under the name of progressiveism, but which are in the 
nature of retrogressiveism instead. 

I refer in this connection to the initiative and the referen- 
dum and the recall, all of which had been tried and proven 
failures more than a thousand years before our constitution 
was framed. 

The Mexican Question. 

I would be glad, too, to say something about the Monroe 
doctrine, and the interpretation that is being put upon it by 
the present Federal administration with respect to Mexico and 
San Domingo; and point out why I do not think there is 
any obligation resting upon us because of that doctrine, or 
otherwise, to assume responsibility for a de facto government, 
or to supervise and regulate purely domestic questions of 
accession to office under a de jure government. 

With the morals and methods that may be employed by 
other peoples, we rightfully have no concern, except only as 
we do, and properly may wish that the same high standard 
of morals may obtain in every country that we try to main- 
tain in this cc'intry. 

19 



In President Monroe's announcement of his doctrine it is 
stated as a part of that doctrine that with the politics of 
Europe, the troubles, the wars and accessions to office in that 
country we will have nothing whatever to do, except only to 
recognize the de facto government that any country may have 
for the time being. 

It can not be claimed in view of this language that it is 
properly any concern of ours how a de facto government of any 
European country may have been established, or how the head 
of any de jure government may have acceded to power. By 
the same token it is no concern of ours how a de facto govern- 
ment may have been established in Mexico, San Domingo, or 
any other country of the Western Hemisphere, or how any 
head of any government de jure of any country on this hemi- 
sphere may have acceded to power. 

But if it were otherwise and moral considerations were to 
determine whether we should recognize a de facto govern- 
ment or a president who might accede to the head of a de jure 
government, it would be extremely difficult in most cases to 
set up a standard by which to measure intelligent action. 

Take the case of Mexico, for instance. Huerta is at the 
head as Provisional President of the established government. 
No matter whether it be the government de jure, as it is 
forcibly claimed to be, or a mere de facto government, it is 
the only national government that has been recognized as 
such. 

He has been recognized as Provisional President by the 
unanimous vote of both the Senate and the House of the Con- 
gress of the republic of Mexico, and by all the army and by 
all the departments of the government. He has been so recog- 
nized by Great Britain, France and Germany and many 
other nations. I know of no reason, at least I have heard of 
none ; why he should not also be recognized by us, except only 
to use a common expression, there is "blood on his hands." 

It may be there is blood on his hands. It would be hard 
to find a Mexican of distinction who does not have blood on 
his hands. 

20 



Some of them are bloody from head to foot; but suppose 
Huerta be driven out of office, as he probably will be, in con- 
sequence of our policy with respect to him, and what our 
government is doing in hostility to him, then what? After 
the deluge, what comes next? Who then will be recognized? 
Will we still wait for some one without blood on his hands? 
Then surely we will not recognize any leader of the constitu- 
tionalists. 

The record made by them is one of blood and waste and 
anarchy, and ruin, sufficient to fulfill completely the require- 
ments of General Sherman's description of war. 

The inhuman and brutal murder of captured prisoners 
has been such as to shock the whole world. The newspapers 
account for these brutalities by describing Villa and other 
Generals as bandit chieftains, who have been officially out- 
lawed for years. 

If Huerta drops out, then some one of these chieftains 
will probably accede to the Presidency. 

If the fact that a man may have blood on his hands be a 
reason why he shall not be recognized then the same trouble 
will arise. In the meanwhile as now, our treaty will continue 
suspended, for if there be no government we can recognize 
there is of necessity only anarchy; and anarchy like war sus- 
pends treaties of peace and amity for the simple reason that 
there is no government in existence responsible for their en- 
forcement, and, therefore, nobody against whom we can assert 
a claim of violation of a treaty and secure redress for the 
destruction of American life and American property. 

If it were calculated to avoid war, otherwise inevitable, it 
might be justified, but it is not. On the contrary it 
makes war, otherwise improbable almost a certainty, if not 
now, later, for surely the seeds of strife have been sown. 

The whole situation is most unfortunate. A bad feeling 
toward Americans already existing has been made worse and 
at best years will pass before relations that are cordial in fact 
will again be restored ; but I have already said there is no time 
now for the proper discussion of a subject of such grave 

21 



character, such serious importance and such far-reaching con- 
sequences. 

Some other time, when there is better opportunity, there 
is much more that might be said. For the present I leave it 
with the expression of regret that a President, who, although 
entertaining views with which I do not agree as to some 
economic policies, and views with which I do not agree with 
respect at least to this phase of his foreign policy, should 
make the mistake of putting our country in such an inde- 
fensible attitude as that which we have assumed in this matter. 

I regret it because, and I say it with pleasure, I have long 
been an admirer of the ability, the culture, the refinement, the 
dignity and the high personal character of President Wilson. 
He has so deported himself since he assumed office as to show 
an unusual devotion to his duty as he sees it. I wish him 
every success possible with respect to all his policies, in so 
far as their success may be consistent with the prosperity of 
our country and the honor and the dignity of our great 
government. 



22 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



012 051 508 1 Oj 



\ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




012 051 508 1 



